BumpInTheNight:Looks a lot like many of my Kerbal Space Program attempts, minus the intentional landing back on the launch pad part :P

/pretty cool//wonder if they 3D printed any of the parts for it

My very first Kerbal launch (damn all of you Farkers for telling me about it) was one crazy ride. That rocket ended up pointing every possible direction except straight down. Yet I still managed to get the Kerbal back on the ground alive and safe.

45cal:Wouldn't the fuel needed to land like this from a trip into low earth orbit basically negate any payload carrying capacity?

Yes and no. The whole point of developing this is that it's far more efficient - it's a refuelable, reusable system that is far less expensive. Like, the fuel is .3 percent of the total cost of a Falcon 9. Even with the small payload hit (which they somewhat compensated for slightly with larger tanks), it's still so much cheaper that you could do dozens launches and get way more into space for your money.

What is it that can be done with this feature that would make it worth not only the development and production costs but also carrying that much extra fuel on every flight?

The fuel of a Falcon 9 is .3 percent of the cost of the launch - the rest is the launch vehicle, which is destroyed. Having a reusable one drives costs into the dirt. This functions as the lower stage that goes up high, the top bit shoots off into orbit, and this returns - saving the vehicle, and allowing many relaunches with just fuel costs/maintenance.

45cal:Fluid: dangelder: Why didn't they just do what they needed to do with the hexacopter in the first place?

The point is that a rocket can do it. This is just a proof of concept; they ultimately plan to have a rocket go into space, return, and land intact.

Wouldn't the fuel needed to land like this from a trip into low earth orbit basically negate any payload carrying capacity?

Not necessarily.For reusable We'd be comparing the weight of wings, parachutes,or some other system with the fuel it takes to go from terminal velocity (what... Like a hundred miles an hour or so in free fall?) to zero.Rockets are very good at accelerating in a short space of time. Especially empty rockets with just a spit of fuel left.While the approach wold be scary as hell, it should work just fine.

What is it that can be done with this feature that would make it worth not only the development and production costs but also carrying that much extra fuel on every flight?

The fuel of a Falcon 9 is .3 percent of the cost of the launch - the rest is the launch vehicle, which is destroyed. Having a reusable one drives costs into the dirt. This functions as the lower stage that goes up high, the top bit shoots off into orbit, and this returns - saving the vehicle, and allowing many relaunches with just fuel costs/maintenance.

Ah, I didn't quite get the relationship to the payload.

But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.

What is it that can be done with this feature that would make it worth not only the development and production costs but also carrying that much extra fuel on every flight?

The fuel of a Falcon 9 is .3 percent of the cost of the launch - the rest is the launch vehicle, which is destroyed. Having a reusable one drives costs into the dirt. This functions as the lower stage that goes up high, the top bit shoots off into orbit, and this returns - saving the vehicle, and allowing many relaunches with just fuel costs/maintenance.

Ah, I didn't quite get the relationship to the payload.

But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.

(I meant the weight of the fuel, not the cost.)

I largely presume it's because they did the math, and that was the best cost-benefit ratio. Though I don't have any specifics there.

What is it that can be done with this feature that would make it worth not only the development and production costs but also carrying that much extra fuel on every flight?

The fuel of a Falcon 9 is .3 percent of the cost of the launch - the rest is the launch vehicle, which is destroyed. Having a reusable one drives costs into the dirt. This functions as the lower stage that goes up high, the top bit shoots off into orbit, and this returns - saving the vehicle, and allowing many relaunches with just fuel costs/maintenance.

Ah, I didn't quite get the relationship to the payload.

But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.

(I meant the weight of the fuel, not the cost.)

I largely presume it's because they did the math, and that was the best cost-benefit ratio. Though I don't have any specifics there.

Yeah, fair enough.

(I was confused by a remark about re-entry and thought the idea was to have this whole thing orbit and return which seemed strange.)

But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.

The deal is, (I'm pretty sure anyway), that it comes down almost precisely where it will be launched again from, maybe within tens of meters of the launch site. (or at least a retrieval location). It will already be in launch position as well. Also, the gliding approach would have to deal with significantly more navigational issues/wind issues as well as how gentle it will land.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous:But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.

(I meant the weight of the fuel, not the cost.)

Extrapolating further from existing comments, maybe the cost/weight penalty (my thought as well) of the fuel, and the expense to develop the technique, is still cheaper than trucking the booster from wherever it landed.

I mean, you think it's expensive to flatbed your Subaru to the dealer 60 miles away, try it with a booster stage.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous:But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.

My guess: SpaceX does not have an entire Navy at their disposal in order to sail out to whatever spot in the ocean the parachute approach would lead, so a system where the rocket can fly itself home to their own property (and using the pre-approved window for atmospheric flight) might be handy.

way south:45cal: Fluid: dangelder: Why didn't they just do what they needed to do with the hexacopter in the first place?

The point is that a rocket can do it. This is just a proof of concept; they ultimately plan to have a rocket go into space, return, and land intact.

Wouldn't the fuel needed to land like this from a trip into low earth orbit basically negate any payload carrying capacity?

Not necessarily.For reusable We'd be comparing the weight of wings, parachutes,or some other system with the fuel it takes to go from terminal velocity (what... Like a hundred miles an hour or so in free fall?) to zero.Rockets are very good at accelerating in a short space of time. Especially empty rockets with just a spit of fuel left.While the approach wold be scary as hell, it should work just fine.

You mean last minute empty tank full throttle landings? They are fun *and* the most efficient.